eyeball Posted January 16, 2009 Report Posted January 16, 2009 So there's no way to avoid being drawn into a conflict and there's only the prospect of fighting wars and insurgency forever. Is this acceptable or should we stick our heads in the sand and pretend it is? Genocide OTOH seems to work, look at Newfoundland for example or that little village I mentioned. Why do you want to f..k around forever? Perhaps wulf is right we should just bulldoze our enemies under the rubble of their own failed cultures and states and be done with them forever. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
tango Posted January 16, 2009 Report Posted January 16, 2009 No! he shot an animal Terrorist! Who cares?? Your thinking makes you an animal, wulf. Inciting and advocating murder is pretty lowlife. Quote My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples. Love it or leave it, eh! Peace.
tango Posted January 16, 2009 Report Posted January 16, 2009 unbelieveable never have i seen so much support for the enemy as i have on here. Canadians are Canadians. We support the law and due process. Good soldiers do too. Otherwise, if there are no laws of engagement, they are all vulnerable. Quote My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples. Love it or leave it, eh! Peace.
eyeball Posted January 16, 2009 Report Posted January 16, 2009 Unfornately trade is necessary. Would you want to do without sugar, how about rice, how about tires for your car, rubber isn't produced in North America, just refined and turned into consumables. We don't have every resource in each country we have to trade to aquire them. We will never be self sufficant unless, you wish to deprive citizens of their wants and only allow them to have their basic needs met clothing food water, shelter, and absolutely no choice. Not my idea of a decent life, we have seen that type of lifestyle, and would you be willing to give up all we have to live in the old soviet life style. Bread lines little to no conviences. I doubt you will find many people willing to give up the lifestyle they have now. Why not just go take what we need? Trade isn't necesarry. Why should we be deprived when can just deprive someone else? Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
tango Posted January 16, 2009 Report Posted January 16, 2009 So there's no way to avoid being drawn into a conflict and there's only the prospect of fighting wars and insurgency forever. Is this acceptable or should we stick our heads in the sand and pretend it is?Genocide OTOH seems to work, look at Newfoundland for example or that little village I mentioned. Why do you want to f..k around forever? Perhaps wulf is right we should just bulldoze our enemies under the rubble of their own failed cultures and states and be done with them forever. Problem with that is ... they are human too and they bulldoze back! Gee ... I guess we will have to have some 'rules of engagement', eh? Quote My Canada includes rights of Indigenous Peoples. Love it or leave it, eh! Peace.
eyeball Posted January 16, 2009 Report Posted January 16, 2009 Canadians are Canadians. We support the law and due process. Then why didn't we go into Burma or most of the 60 conflicts going on in the world? Why on Earth did we pick the toughest nut on the planet to begin exersizing our responsibility to protect? I think it would have made more sense to start with some easier places. We could have gained more experience and some allies and work up from the bottom. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Alta4ever Posted January 16, 2009 Report Posted January 16, 2009 Then why didn't we go into Burma or most of the 60 conflicts going on in the world? Why on Earth did we pick the toughest nut on the planet to begin exersizing our responsibility to protect? I think it would have made more sense to start with some easier places. We could have gained more experience and some allies and work up from the bottom. Because we are a NATO member state and comited to help our allies. This seems really hard for you to understand, if we are attacked and enter into a war, our allies must come and help us, we are expected to do the same our allies. One of them happened to be attacked we are holding up our commitment. But commitment means nothing to you does it? You just expect expect expect and are willing to give nothing in return. Remeber it is these treaties that along with the vetrans of many wars, that gives you the rights and freedoms that you are exercising right here. If their weas no Nato you might be speaking german or russian, or in a mass grave of political prisoners. The world would be a very different place if we did not support our NATO Allies, their would be no west germany, who knows how much of europe would have ended up under the iron curtain. Quote "What about the legitimacy of the democratic process, yeah, what about it?" Jack Layton and his coup against the people of Canada “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” President Ronald Reagan
eyeball Posted January 17, 2009 Report Posted January 17, 2009 The world would be a very different place if we did not support our NATO Allies, their would be no west germany, who knows how much of europe would have ended up under the iron curtain. I don't know but I'm quite certain the wall still would have fallen for the same reasons it did all on its own and a lot sooner. The only reason the USSR stood as long as lt did is that the west gave it the reason for being it needed to mask its deficiencies and inconsistencies and prolong its existance long beyond its past-due date. If their weas no Nato you might be speaking german or russian And you'd never know the difference would you? If it was the Germans who won you'd probably be in here defending the glory of the state and blessing its war heros for everything that's good and wonderful in the world just like you always do. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Army Guy Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 ...peacekeeping days, those are gone forever... Forever is far from hopeless in your mind? Nothing is truely hopeless if enough people take action, for instance i'm sure things where looking hopeless for those Russian soldiers in Staligrad, as well. And although they paid a horrific price they did make a difference and made change. I never said stick our heads in the sand. You know I've said we should build a nuclear deterance to protect oursleves. But you seem to be determined we muck about the world's quagmires forever instead. Explain to me the difference of Standing behind a wall of Nuk missles and watch as the world rips itself, and sticking your head in the sand. Many of these nations with a Nuk arsenal are still involved in these many conflicts around the globe, having all those nuks have done nothing for them.... Afgan may be mucking around to you, but many of our soldiers myself included thinks that we are giving something that we take for granted in this nation, a chance at peace, a chance to rebuild a nation that has been razed to the ground by War, giving the future people of Afgan hope... Something that i think we could attach to our morals and values, somthing we as a nation could be proud of.... I think the message Canada needs to send the world is that we value our lives too much to waste them trying to save the world from its own stupidity. Unless the world wants to deal with us on our terms it should go mind its own business. Its a pagan ethos born out of years of listening to people point out the futility of trying to help losers who insist on behaving in a self-destructive manner. Its a good hard-nosed argument that seems to work in the case of people or even industries but not cultures. I fail to see why. Hey i don't think that will sit to well with those that still believe in our Peace keping etho's. It is Canadian to want to help others, it is who we are, our history is full of examples. This is a police matter. Are you suggesting we send the army to deal with that? Terrorism is not a police matter, it involves many agencies in this nation, including the military, hence why we have a counter terror unit... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
BigAl Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 Terrorism is not a police matter, it involves many agencies in this nation, including the military, hence why we have a counter terror unit... Now if only we had our very own Jack Bauer...maybe we wouldn't be in this mess Kidding, obviously. Thanks for sticking around on this thread Army Guy. I think you're a great counterbalance. But we've strayed pretty far from the original topic -- has there been any more word on whether our good Captain will be tried for murder? Quote
Army Guy Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 has there been any more word on whether our good Captain will be tried for murder Yes, the Capt has been charged, and will soon be in court to see if he remains in custody. Captain Semrau was charged with one count of second-degree murder, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 235(1) of the Criminal Code. Captain Semrau is accused of shooting, with intent to kill, an unarmed male person. DND site. A couple of takes in the media in ref to this case. some are interesting. Visit My Website Media Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
BigAl Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 Yes, the Capt has been charged, and will soon be in court to see if he remains in custody. Captain Semrau was charged with one count of second-degree murder, contrary to Section 130 of the National Defence Act, pursuant to Section 235(1) of the Criminal Code. Captain Semrau is accused of shooting, with intent to kill, an unarmed male person. DND site. A couple of takes in the media in ref to this case. some are interesting. Visit My Website Media I have a feeling this is going to be one of the most controversial trials in Canadian military history. I've heard compelling arguments on both sides of this debate...guess we'll have to wait and see what the tribunal decides upon. Quote
Army Guy Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 I have a feeling this is going to be one of the most controversial trials in Canadian military history. I've heard compelling arguments on both sides of this debate...guess we'll have to wait and see what the tribunal decides upon. I think your right, there is going to be a major learning curve for both sides, one that may upset the basket "relations that our citizens have with thier military" and vice versa....i'm hoping we take it slow, and try an educate both sides, and make the right decision for both sides... I hope justice will be served, and polictical grand standing left aside, and this Capt is not made an example of to gain a few pionts.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
KeyStone Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 their would be no west germany I know that you are from Alberta, so I don't hold you to the standards of the other posters, but... 1) It's there not their, in this context. 2) Take a look at a map (current), and tell me where West Germany is. Quote
KeyStone Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 I have a feeling this is going to be one of the most controversial trials in Canadian military history. I've heard compelling arguments on both sides of this debate...guess we'll have to wait and see what the tribunal decides upon. This is not going to be controversial. This is going to be an open and shut case and this guy is going to serve many years in prison, as he should. You don't shoot unarmed prisoners. Soldiers are not the ones who get to makes these decisions. You don't just get to kill people because you think they are the bad guy. If I go to a prison to visit Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo and I shoot them - I am not a hero - I am a criminal. It doesn't matter if those are bad people, we have laws, and we have standards for military conduct. Every crime should have a victim. In this case, there are two victims. The first was a severely wounded unarmed man. The second victim, and the reason why Semrau needs a lengthy prison sentence is the reputation of Canada's military. Quote
M.Dancer Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 This is not going to be controversial. This is going to be an open and shut case and this guy is going to serve many years in prison, as he should. Gosh you seem to have all the facts of the case I wonder why there is even the necessity of a trial.... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 Nothing is truely hopeless if enough people take action, for instance i'm sure things where looking hopeless for those Russian soldiers in Staligrad, as well. And although they paid a horrific price they did make a difference and made change. Some difference, either get shot by the nazis in front of you or the commies behind you. Explain to me the difference of Standing behind a wall of Nuk missles and watch as the world rips itself, and sticking your head in the sand. First off you won't be able to see anything with your head in the sand. Again, I do not propose that we simply ignore that the world is a hostile place and just blindly hope that it ignores us, clearly we need a strong vigilant defense. Many of these nations with a Nuk arsenal are still involved in these many conflicts around the globe, having all those nuks have done nothing for them.... Probably because many of these have invited conflict by sticking their nose where it doesn't belong. Why is simply laying low and minding your own business as a strategy for staying out of harm's way such a difficult concept? If you truely believe this will never work and that our invasion is inevitable then I fail to see why anything should preclude our premptively destroying, utterly and completely, any and every potential threat that might exist. In the meantime please note that I have not completely slammed the door on our getting involved in other people's fights, I've merely suggested that it be Canadians themselves who directly choose to send our troops if we do. Obviously I completely disagree with the ridiculous notion that Canadians are actually doing this when they vote in general elections. If this is what passes for democracy in some people's minds we might as well be living in Stalingrad. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Army Guy Posted January 19, 2009 Report Posted January 19, 2009 This is not going to be controversial. This is going to be an open and shut case and this guy is going to serve many years in prison, as he should. Actually it is going to be controversal, as i said before there is going to be a major learning curve, with you and me and everyone. Part of that learning curve is for civilians to learn something about combat and a theater of operations. And how Law as we know it it in Canada can not directly translate into law in a combat theater... Such as the defense is missing a key peice of evidence, the body, no proof that it was the Capt's 9 MM that killed the man, no bullet was recovered...No one was in postion to directly see the Capt shoot the man, no one can even confirm that the Capts bullets even struck the man in question...All we have is the statement by a few observers that said the Capt walked over to the insurgent, pulled out his pistol and fired 2 shots... I don't think it is open and shut.... You don't shoot unarmed prisoners. Your right there is laws again'st such acts, be it Canadian law, and the conventions. Soldiers are not the ones who get to makes these decisions. I get your piont Soldiers do not make up the law and conventions, but that being said every soldier that pulls a trigger makes those very decisions everyday. You don't just get to kill people because you think they are the bad guy. Again this is where our laws at home and laws in combat become grey, and clouded. Let me explain, In Afgan a soldier may take a life if he considers his life or the lives of his comrads in danger, "someone digging a hole on a well traveled roadway is grounds to use deadly force". or a person openly carrying arms on a battlefield is grounds to use deadly force, we don't have to prove anything just take the shot...because those actions are to be consirdered carryied out by bad guys.... If I go to a prison to visit Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo and I shoot them - I am not a hero - I am a criminal. It doesn't matter if those are bad people, we have laws, and we have standards for military conduct. We do have standards and laws to govern how we kill it other, but the end result is death, none the less. If the Capt had while advancing to contact shot the Taliban serveral more times in the chest instead of the normal double tap, in fact using over kill to eliminate his enemy he would have been alright and his actions legal according to the laws and conventions.... But in this case we are standing tall, and pionting our fingers at the Capt, because legally he was not to show compassion, he was to leave his enemy on the ground in massive amounts of pain, to bled out of his wounds....and while mercy killings are not specifically mentioned in the laws or conventions to avoid confusion they have been part of warfare since the beginnings, history is full of examples....i know not a valid excuse but then again those in charge of these criminal proceedings probable have not stepped foot on the battlefield. A place that brings no glory, but rather death and destruction.....where every action there goes again'st our moral values and the way we where brought up.... Every crime should have a victim. In this case, there are two victims. The first was a severely wounded unarmed man. The second victim, and the reason why Semrau needs a lengthy prison sentence is the reputation of Canada's military. Yes he was a severely wounded and unarmed man, one just seconds before he was engaged in a life and death struggle with the Capt and his men....and lost that struggle in a lawful engagement.....add to your statement " in huge amounts of pain", he was no victim he was there to accomplish the same deed as the Capt was.....to close with and destroy the enemy...He was forced with a short notice, and very major life decision, leave the enemy behind in extreme pain, or kill him putting him out of his pain...A decision i hope i don't have to make, but i'm not sure if i would have made a different one...in this case... Canada's military reputation will survive intact as it always has, warts and all, given it's deadly task, is a testament to it's soldiers....The good, bad and the ugly is all in our history....as this will be. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.